Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Stephen Harper: I Am Not A Climate Crook

OTTAWA - The federal government isn't secretly plotting to cover up its studies about the impacts of global warming across the country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.Well, they're not secretly plotting anymore.

But its pretty clear they don't want this study, which warns of a scramble for resources in the melting arctic, coming out in advance of the Bali summit, especially when it seems that Canada has joined a group of "obstructionist nations" lobbying against binding emissions targets. Oh well, now the study will make news twice.

48 comments:

Despite Harper's assurances, the government was unable to explain what happened to the second report.

Au contraire, fiberal media. Harper explained it thusly:

But Harper noted that his government has announced plans to regulate pollution from industry and made it clear that it will only sign on to an international treaty that includes major polluting countries such as the United States, India and China to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions go down.

I don't think Harper could actually answer a question directly if his life depended on it. Judging from the Conservatives (and the conserva-trolls) I think righwingers believe questions are always either attacks or invitations to make things up. Only profoundly dishonest people behave that way.

Former Greenie gets no respect from his colleagues. The signal clearly is that the new government will be only light green, with tokenism being its main Green feature

First Peter Garrett had the crucial issue of climate change yanked from his new environment portfolio, now the new minister has been sidelined from answering questions on the matter in parliament. In a further embarrassment for Mr Garrett, it was yesterday revealed he will not represent Climate Change Minister Senator Penny Wong during Question Time in the Lower House. Questions in the House of Representatives about Senator Wong's role will instead be fielded by Treasurer Wayne Swan.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said the extraordinary move showed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had no confidence in the gaffe-prone Mr Garrett's ability as a minister. "I fail to understand why in fact Prime Minister Rudd does not have the confidence in Mr Garrett to be taking questions on climate change," Mr Nelson said. "It was always very interesting to see Mr Garrett attempt to answer questions."

Ms Wong leapt to Mr Garrett's defence, saying he had not been gagged: "Peter has a very clear voice in government, he is a Cabinet minister." She argued that climate change was as much an economic issue as an environmental one. "I think it's quite a good thing, if we reflect that in our representing arrangements - but I wouldn't read too much into it."

Whooee! A coupla days ago, Bev Oda was up on her hind legs crowin' about how Canada is puttin' an extra $50 million into landmine eradication. This is on top of other millions we already been spendin'.

The big troublem with this whole anti-landmine thing is that the bigass landmine producers like the USA ain't signed on to the treaty. Landmine production and deployment goes on unregulated while Canada shackles itself to a binding limit on landmine production and use. The binding limit is zero.

I can't figger out why we're throwin' away money and stiflin' our economy by compliance with such a flawed treaty. Canada can't do it alone. We'd be lucky if we could eradicate just 2% of the world's landmines. But there's no point in us doin' anything when the US ain't signed the treaty.

Canada's armaments industry is being crippled by these binding limits. Even if Canada don't contribute a single landmine, landmine production and deployment still increases.

The dang Fibewals signed Canada up to a bad deal. That there anti-landmine treaty was a big mistake -- the sorta mistake the world must never make again.

Your beloved denialist extraordinaire Harper has been blocking any efforts with regard to climate change since I think 1997. He's done nothing for ten years. Thats right 10 years of conservative inaction. Harppon has been PM for two year and NOT ONE REGULATION has been signed though he's trotted out no less than 3 plans.

As for the amount we are responsible for. Natural amounts vary from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm.) 2005 levels were around 380 ppm and increasing. This represents a 25 percent increase than the highest levels on a record spanning 650,000 years. This data is constantly being updated so its higher now.

BTW did I mention Harper has done nothing in two years? His dithering on this file is going to result in an increase of GHG here in Canada by between 120-220% (approx) by 2020.

"why on Earth would the UN have exempted 75% of the world's emitters?"

The agreement would see our emissions reduced to levels that are still multiples of those in exempted countries. Would you prefer an agreement that saw China's emissions levels frozen and ours lowered to their levels( about 15% of our current levels) by 2012?

Whooee! I'll take yer "Whoosh!" and raise you by a "Sheesh!", RT. I never figgered anybuddy'd miss the irony. I reckon I overestimated the intelligence of some anti-earthers.

At Christmastime, I'm reminded of something that my old Mum said to me more than 50 years ago. She gimme a dime to put in Santa's Sally Ann bucket. She told me it was so's poor folks could get a Christmas dinner. I was only 5 or 6 an' I asked Mum what the poor folks could buy with just ten cents. She told me "Every little bit helps."

As young as I was, I fully understood the concept. I can't understand why it is so difficult for anti-earther ConMen to understand such a simple idea.

"especially when it seems that Canada has joined a group of "obstructionist nations" lobbying against binding emissions targets."

Of course this is a lie and you know it. The Harper position is to not accept a binding emissions target without large emitters in the developing world (China, India, etc.) also accepting binding emissions targets.

Given this report released yesterday that these countries need to reduce their emissions or threaten severe climate change within a generation, it would seem that the Harper position is actually pro-environment and that Dion is actually the one who is ignoring the science of climate change by letting China continue developing unsustainably.

If Dion believes that being green will lead to reductions of megatonnes of emissions while making megatonnes of money, should he not aspire to force everyone to do what's good for their environment AND their economy? (BTW, I actually agree with him to an extent on this statement)

Also, if you believed him when he said that, shouldn't you be arguing for the same?

And to respond to lenny's question, it's a moot point. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have made it quite clear through their actions that they are unwilling to accept your proposal. Might as well try to make a deal that might actually be accepted.

And international pressure is starting to build up on China, because unlike Canada, the existence of some small pacific island states is actually being threatend by Chinese development. Don't think for a second that these countries are against emissions caps for everyone. Capping Chinese emissions isn't supported solely by evil conservatives in developed nations.

Well Jay, looks like you failed grade school science. YOU haven't got a clue about how much CO2 levels varied back over 20,000 years, let alone 650,000. The data you believe in has been fudged so badly, so poorly utilized, manipulated and understood that it's almost next to useless. Why do ice core measurements NOT correlate well to actual direct atmospheric measurements?

Man has contributed an estimated 0.12% of the TOTAL current atmospheric CO2. So of the 350 ppm or so we're currently at, we account for 0.42 ppm. Natural variations are HUGE compared to his.

BTW, Liberals oversaw a 30% increase in Canadian emissions. Don't complain about what Harper did in opposition against a majority government.

So Jay, STFU yourself and do some reading on the subject, instead of just spewing the IPCC political rhetoric. You're clearing uninformed about the topic you so zealously support.

Anon — Hey, it's fun making up numbers and pulling shit out of your arse, isn't it? In fact, it's 43.7% more advantageous to comment ANONYMOUSLY and just plunk crap down than it is to provide references and links to substantiate your otherwise baseless assertions. 78.3% of scientists concur on this by the way.

Jay's numbers are based on published science, references to which you can find here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 Unless you can provide studies refuting those listed, I'd suggest you STFU.

The bitter, illogical whining coming from the left is music to my ears. It means Canada is finally doing the correct thing, after all these years of bowing to every ignorant special interest group, paying off every ethnic group, sucking money out of our pockets, and making social experiments which have now created all the social problems we're now experiencing. I thank God for Harper, and I thank God for Dion, who will help ensure Harper gets a minority. Your fear mongering, your "hidden agenda" propaganda, will all be revealed as the lies they are.

Global warming is a hoax and Harper is taking the best course of action for reducing GHGs. A majority would give Harper the mandate he needs to really solve this non-problem. Any other imaginary problems you'd like to see the Cons tackle? Or maybe you're desperately hoping there is a hidden agenda.Ha ha ha ha!

The bitter, illogical whining coming from the left is music to my ears. It means Canada is finally doing the correct thing, after all these years of bowing to every ignorant special interest group, paying off every ethnic group, sucking money out of our pockets, and making social experiments which have now created all the social problems we're now experiencing. I thank God for Harper, and I thank God for Dion, who will help ensure Harper gets a minority. Your fear mongering, your "hidden agenda" propaganda, will all be revealed as the lies they are.

Canada's total emissions are less than China's monthly incremental increases.

In other words, we could shut down our country completely, and it would be the equivalent of China stopping it's increases (not stipping mind you) for a couple of months. That's not even counting the US, India, Russia ect.

Thankfully most Canadian's aren't willing to watch us suffer for effectively no practical effect.

And also thankfully, Dion has no clue that Canadians aren't so willing.

Glad to see Dion and his followers are still living in the unreal class room world.

Now, lets get that late winter election that Dion promised us under way!

"By the way, I love how some people (anony @ 1:14 PM) never tire of simply repeating the Harperite position as if it's an argument that becomes more compelling with each reiteration."

LOL. Yeah, heaven forbid that we actually debate what's happening in reality, Ti-guy. But really, why do you think China should be allowed to have unfettered growth in CO2 emissions while we don't? It's alright to take that position but it should probably be justified by more than ramblings about a Bush-Harper neocon conspiracy.

"It's not a moot point. You think we can demand that China caps it's emissions while we refuse to even reduce ours to levels that are still multiples of of the Chinese? You're hilarious."

What's hilarious is the environmental groups who, by condemning Harper's position, reveal that they are dead-set against emission reductions for a country who, if not already the world's largest GHG emitter will be shortly. A country's whose economy is growing at a rate of roughly 10% a year and is overwhelmingly powered by fossil fuels. What's pro-environment about that position?

I also don't buy your morality-based arguments with respect to China. You mention per capita emissions like the West has some sort of moral responsibility for the fact there are over 1 billion people in China. The reality is that they are steadily approaching our levels of per capita emissions, and will continue to do so with unfettered growth. From an environmental standpoint this is undesireable and should be stopped, or at least slowed.

From what I am inferring from your response, and you can correct me if I have mis-interpreted it, not only is it OK that China doesn't do anything, they should be allowed to continue their unsustainable development for an indeterminate amount of time, each year with a growth of emissions roughly equal to Canada's total emissions.

If this problem is going to be solved then China needs to be included in the action plan. It's simply not an option to exclude them at this point. Maybe there are moral issues that should be included in cap-setting, but caps need to be set for all major emitters.

"What's hilarious is the environmental groups who, by condemning Harper's position, reveal that they are dead-set against emission reductions for a country who, if not already the world's largest GHG emitter will be shortly."

Name one, liar.

"I also don't buy your morality-based arguments with respect to China. You mention per capita emissions like the West has some sort of moral responsibility for the fact there are over 1 billion people in China."

I see. So, Luxembourg should be entitled to emit as much as the U.S.? After all, what "moral responsibility" does Luxembourg have for the fact that there are over 300 million people in the U.S.? Each of those Chinese people is entitled to produce less GHGs than you because you happen to live in a country with a lower population? Hard to buy a "morality-based argument" when you don't have any, isn't it?p.s. when are you going to back up you bullshit @1:37, anonytard?

Or are you going to argue that they didn't get the nuance in Harper's position that he blocked the word binding because it didn't include India?

"Hard to buy a "morality-based argument" when you don't have any, isn't it?"

I think you'll have a hard time trying to win over Canadians that we should reduce our per capita emissions down to China's level. It's more about being practical than moral. I think we'd have more luck getting a deal arguing that both countries should have emissions caps and set China's higher than current emissions but less than business as usual and set ours lower. That would at least take into consideration some of the moral concerns.

"Tough shit, anonycoward. You own it."

LOL. Coming from some dude on the net simply called "lenny". It's not my statement but I don't really care.

Well, I guess you could just take me at my word. Or I could get an account. But since I choose not to, I'm prepared to accept that some comments by others may be attributed to me. Such is life and all that.

I just thought I'd stop by for a good debate, posters on this blog usually deliver (either in debate, entertaining insults, or both).

"The Suzuki Foundation is against emissions caps for large countries? Stop lying."

I know, it's such an obvious lie to disprove that you haven't even linked to anything that says they are explicitly demanding emissions caps for large emitters in developing countries. I wonder why that is?

Without that statement what else am I supposed to infer when they criticize our government for not agreeing to binding targets because it does not include targets for other large GHG emitters? If they support binding targets for India, shouldn't they argue that they also want Indian emissions capped but feel Canada needs to sign onto a binding emissions cap nonetheless?

"I know, it's such an obvious lie to disprove that you haven't even linked to anything that says they are explicitly demanding emissions caps for large emitters in developing countries."

It's your assertion to prove, liar:

"What's hilarious is the environmental groups who, by condemning Harper's position, reveal that they are dead-set against emission reductions for a country who, if not already the world's largest GHG emitter will be shortly."

"Without that statement what else am I supposed to infer when they criticize our government for not agreeing to binding targets because it does not include targets for other large GHG emitters?"

Without a statement from you condemning pedophilia, what else am I supposed to infer, except that you're a pedophile?

Stupid anonymous, you do not need an account to post here, just select a nickname and give yourself a name like "another rightwing dimwit who cannot face reality and shows his ignorance of science every time he parrots some lying denialist's lame arguments."

Much like BCL's initial assertion that Canada is obstructing Bali is his to prove. I've 'proved' my allegation to the same extent he has.

BTW, Lenny. While you were calling me 'hilarious' for claiming that China might accept a binding emissions target, you may have noticed that the Chinese delegation used the term "commitments" for the first time in climate change. Did China just begin to move despite Canada not meeting it's Kyoto commitments? Yes, I think it did. You can stop protecting their interests now.

"Without a statement from you condemning pedophilia, what else am I supposed to infer, except that you're a pedophile?"

That's a neat trick. However, I've never made a statement about pedophilia (nice sensationalism BTW). The David Suzuki Foundation has outright condemned Harper's stance that India should have a binding emissions, arguing we should take a leadership role. They have actually made a position I can interpret and are lobbying for a particular environmental policy. You are free to disagree with my interpretation (like I did BCL's initial statement) but it doesn't make me a liar.

What would have forced me to retract my statement is if you had provided a link where the David Suzuki Foundation explicitly called for major emitters in developing countries to have emissions caps. Why didn't you? Because you know that such a statement does not exist.

"Stupid anonymous, you do not need an account to post here, just select a nickname and give yourself a name like "another rightwing dimwit who cannot face reality and shows his ignorance of science every time he parrots some lying denialist's lame arguments.""

I never once posted on this thread that I think Canada should not act on climate change. My whole argument is that Canada should not be signing international agreements in which the major emitters in the developing world do not have to act because they need to be part of the solution to avoid catastrophic climate change.

And if Harper's position is so wrong and destructive, then surely the opposition parties will unite to bring this terrible government down. (Insert raucous laughter here)

anony,"All of those pre-industrialization ppms you're quoting are from manipulated data sets."

Nice try, but some junk written up in a fascist rag doesn't cut it.

"The David Suzuki Foundation has outright condemned Harper's stance that India should have a binding emissions,"

Suzuki has condemned Harper's refusal to commit CANADA to binding emissions, liar. Harper's excuse is irrelevant - Suzuki isn't required to accept it. If Harper said he wasn't committing to binding targets unless you stopped diddling kids, would you infer that Suzuki was against you stopping your kid-diddling?

You're right, he doesn't have to accept his excuse. But he still needs to address it if he is to clearly articulate his position. The PM gave his reason for abandoning an emissions target and all we get from the David Suzuki Foundation is a criticism of the action and not the PM's justification.

If the PM's justification is crap, let's hear the David Suzuki Foundation tell us why they think it's crap. If they don't, and the Conservatives learned this the hard way on this issue, the opposition fills in the blanks for them.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Let's hope they do better in Bali.

More like exaggerating. But if China agreed to a binding emissions target then Harper would accept one (or else he's a total hypocrite which I'll admit could still be a possibility) and then all the environmentalists who in the article BCL linked to claiming that the Canada is being obstructionist are also lying.